Re: Writing Secure code

From: Valdis.Kletnieksat_private
Date: Fri Dec 27 2002 - 10:03:08 PST

  • Next message: Dana Epp: "Re: Writing Secure code"

    On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 18:16:17 +0530, Rahul Chander Kashyap <rahulat_private>  said:
    
    > And one more thing...<this one might be intresting ;-)>  Is it possible 
    > to write code that is completely secure and not exploitable? 
    
    This is just a specific case of the question "Is it possible to write
    totally bug-free code"?  And yes, it's *possible* to write bug-free code.
    The problem is that it's incredibly difficult to manage the development
    process in such a way that bugs are totally prevented - remember that humans
    are writing the code, and humans are.. well... human. ;)
    
    On the flip side, good development practices can probably gain us 2 or maybe
    even 3 orders of magnitude in security - remember that 98% of security bugs
    are The Same Dumb Things over and over - so simply not doing those dumb
    things gets you 2 orders of magnitude right there.
    
    Also, remember that there's some basic economics involved too - if you do
    a graph:
    
      |X .           . O     where 'X' is the costs (incident response, cleanup,
    C |X  .         .  O     lost sales, downtime, etc) of not being secure, and
    O | X  ..     ..  O      'O' is the cost of actually deploying security (this
    S |  X   ..$..   O       stuff *does* have real costs - ever had to get 30K
    T |   XX       OO        users to change their password on a regular basis?)
      |     XXX OOO          The '.' line is the *sum* of those two, and will have
      |OOOOOOO   XXXXXXX     a minimum value somewhere - I've marked that with a
      +------------------    '$'.  *THAT* is the correct level of security to have.
         SECURITY
    
    What you want is the *minimum total cost of security*.  Now, for different
    applications, the 'X' and 'O' lines have different shapes - if you're securing
    nuclear launch codes, the 'X' is almost a horizontal (and very high) line -
    it's very expensive to get hacked no matter what your security is.  It makes
    sense to spend a billion dollars to secure those.   On the other hand, it
    *doesnt* make sense to spend even $200K (and that's not much in development
    terms - 2 man-years at best) to secure data that's only worth $2K.
    -- 
    				Valdis Kletnieks
    				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
    				Virginia Tech
    
    
    
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Dec 27 2002 - 15:48:11 PST